Somewhat surprisingly, Road & Track’s very first road test was not of an MG, but of a rather prosaic 1947 Ford. So it seemed fitting that in their 25th anniversary issue (June 1972) they would revisit that with a comparison test of 1947 and 1972 Fords, to take stock of just how changed a big Ford was after a quarter century. It makes for interesting reading, and it’s undoubtedly the only reason they would have tested a ’72 big Ford, since by that time they had pretty much sworn off such ungainly and unseemly things.
And this test has a special significance to me, as you all know my deep feelings for the 1972 LTD. I was curious to find if R&T shared any of those.
Here I am having just finished my evaluation of and musings on a 1972 LTD. And I came so close to buying it. I should have, in retrospect. But that’s life; the dance of ambiguity, indecision and irony.
But I was shocked by R&T’s opening paragraph, which ends with these painful words: “the 1972 Ford LTD is not much fun to drive”. What!?! So I’m not the only person in the world that thinks that? But that’s just for starters.
Here’s more from R&T’s poison tongue: “it has nothing that could be described as “handling”…the steering is completely devoid of feel, it’s very slow and it’s very loose. The first few inches of wheel movement produce nothing. Then understeer sets in, the tires squeal, and it goes approximately where the driver intended it to go.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. But when I do, I get a lot of blow back.
R&T’s LTD had the same 400 V8 as the one I considered. They managed to hustle it from 0-60 in 11.8 seconds. That’s a good two and a half seconds more than what its 1967 predecessor with a 390 V8 did it in. A half second slower per year, on average. Not exactly progress.
But of course that was better than the 1947 version with its 100 (gross) hp 239 cubic inch flathead V8, which took 21 seconds for the same sprint. That’s still quite a bit faster than the 1975 Ford Granada (23.1 seconds).
A couple of thoughts on the 1947 Ford’s performance. R&T said that the Ford “was heavy for its class”, but a curb weight comparison shows that at 3066 lbs it was within a few pounds of the Chevy (3060) and Plymouth (3037). There’s also a comment about how the Ford was “especially strong at low rpm”. That’s a bit contradictory to the facts, as the Ford V8’s torque peak (180 lb.ft. @2000 rpm) was at a significantly higher rpm than its six cylinder stablemate (188 lb. ft. @1200 rpm), which also had more total torque, confirming insider’s advice that the six was a better all-round performer than the V8. Not surprising, since the six was new in 1942, and the V8 dated back to 1932.
Both the Chevy and Plymouth sixes also had their torque peak at 1200 rpm. The Ford V8 simply needed more revs to make its power, which is pretty consistent with the reality of an engine with more cylinders, all other things being roughly equal.
Road & Track admits that the 1947 Ford wasn’t much fun to drive either: “at 55 mph, a good cruising speed for the day, the driver has his hands full. it jumps on bumps, pitches over dips…” Not surprisingly, given its primitive Model T-style suspension with solid axles and transverse leaf springs. That was pretty obsolete in 1947, and one (me, anyway) could say the same thing about the LTD in 1972.
From a 2020 perspective, but not of course something one would expect to see in 1972, it’s noteworthy that there’s no mention of pickups as a possible customer choice in the showroom.
or Broncos…
It was in mid-1970s that the “buff” books really took note of increasing truck and SUV sales.
It wasn’t just the enthusiast magazines who were a little slow to notice this trend. When AMC purchased Jeep from Kaiser in 1970, some in the mainstream business press dubbed the purchase “Chapin’s Folly” (after AMC Chairman Roy D. Chapin, Jr., who pushed for the acquisition).
We all now know how that ultimately turned out for AMC.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen another car have its road-holding tested on a skidpad that returned a lower lateral g-loading than the .588 calculated for the 1972 Ford. Tall SUVs with open tread tires and aggressive stability control programs seem to hold on about 10% better.
This car had power front disc brakes in 1972, which was still a feature for an American car then. Nonetheless, the brakes exhibited massive fade during a test cycle that should not have been considered extreme.
I can’t help but to think the US auto industry would have remained competitive longer had it been centered in West Virginia, where the geography would have made executives aware that sometimes people need their cars to turn and stop.
We had a ‘72 full size Ford in this same green color, though a Galaxy not LTD, for most of my high school driver training class. Brake fade or no, I remember the brakes felt pretty strong when a student was about to run a stop sign in the outer Sunset and the teacher nailed the passenger side brake pedal and avoided an almost certain collision. I honestly can’t remember if we even wore seat belts; I do know there were five students plus teacher in the car. We never went fast enough to experience any wallow, but the ‘73 Mopar intermediate that replaced the Ford for the last session or two felt like a far superior car.
That green color was everywhere back then, including avocado green home appliances. My ’71 Chevy pickup was the same color as the LTD. Plenty of Mopars came in the same metallic green as well.
The contemporary Toyota Corolla also circled the skidpad at .588g. R&T specifically said in the article that the Corolla was responsive and fun to drive (clearly not true of the LTD), and readers shouldn’t hold the .588g against the Corolla.
My December, 1973 R&T Road Test summary has the Corolla at .615, which was one of the two lowest. Fortunately for the Toyota, none of the turns it encountered were ever as sharp as they were for the LTD.
I think that R&Ts decision on which car was bought by the typical Ford buyer is wrong. They would have been trading in a Model A in 1947. The LTD is more equivalent to a 47 Lincoln than a 47 Ford. A better comparison would have been a 72 Maverick with the 250 six and manual transmission or a base Torino (not a Gran Torino) with a 4 speed 302
These LTDs were being snapped up by older folks at the time, who grew up in the Depression and finally could afford to treat themselves to a nice car. I worked at a Ford dealer in the new car prep department and saw them coming in to pick up their new cars. Lots of folks at or near retirement age.
Sure, there were a few cheapskates who bought a Maverick, but after decades of strong income growth, anyone with a half-way decent job (and typically a designated benefit retirement income, as was the norm then) could readily afford an LTD. 1972 was the peak year for average hourly earnings.
Labour union membership was also common and a direct reason for designated benefits pensions as well as a high hourly pay rate.
Unions have been on the wane since 1979 and those pensions were the first casualty. The wages just stagnated.
I have never been in a labor union and am currently collecting a designated benefit pension from a former employer.
The 1972 Ford. In an era (‘72-76) when all full size cars were crap, Ford stood out by producing the crappiest. By a narrow margin. If anything, Road and Track was way too kind in their review of the car.
Interesting comparison to the ‘47. Having driven one, decades ago, and having driven a number of other makes and models from the just-pre to just-post WWII era, one thing was very obvious. You got strictly what you paid for. There was no way you couldn’t tell the difference between a Ford (Chevrolet, Plymouth) and a Buick (Chrysler). In 1972 the differences weren’t so obvious.
That’s a really astute observation. The only question is why did premium American cars stop being more special? Was it because competition drove the big three to add content to their lower priced cars, or was it because they were soaking the buyers of volume luxury cars? Whatever the reason, the trend was clearly underway only a decade after the 1947 Ford was built. Cars like the Plymouth Fury and Chevrolet Impala had the performance once reserved for luxury brands, and they were available with all of the features too. All that was left was for the standard sized low-priced-three cars to grow to luxury dimensions.
I think it’s both, and as new(smaller) segments emerged the performance trim naturally trickled into the intermediates, compacts and ponycars where it was better suited anyway. With that end of the market mostly separated from the standard size, as well as even cheaper entries within the brand by late 60s there wasn’t really anywhere to go for lower priced brands large cars but down the luxury path with them.
Jimmy John’s has a sandwich named for the 72 Ford LTD. The Ultimate Porker! If you eat the whole thing then try to run you likely won’t have anything called handling either.
Amazing these were only 25 years apart. My 1992 Mustang feels like an older but perfectly functional car today but the 1947 must have felt like an antique only 25 years later in 1972.
I started driving 45 years ago, in 1975. I could, today, acquire a well-equipped 1975 Nova or Malibu, and have air conditioning and basic power equipment, three-point belts and other basic safety features. I could daily drive such a car, and be able to keep it running because just about every mechanical part is still easily available. In contrast, if I wanted a 45 year old car in 1975, I would be looking at something like a Ford Model A, with wood and fabric in the body, little or no climate control, no safety features of any kind, maybe not even roll-up windows depending on what model I had, mechanical brakes, inadequate headlights, and a realistic top speed of about 50. No comparison.
Amazing, right? The standard features on my VW are more than a Cadillac would have had forty years ago. Not as much a difference as the Model A analogy, however.
Having learned to drive in a ’76 LTD (same platform as ’72) with a ’78 Caprice and ’79 Delta 88 also around the house, I can attest that the LTD was a wallowing car in comparison to the other cars at home. Later, I took a step back and drove a ’72 Pontiac Grandville that also offered superior handling and a flatter ride.
The Ford had certain charms, including a soft and quiet ride, but handling was not its forte.
These cars were never built for handling. They were designed for artisans to chisel fine diamonds in the back seat while enroute to the ballet.
I’d take the 47 at its original price if I was offered one, I was in a used car emporium recently to view something and went wandering and found a 47 coupe in a back shed aslong with a Dodge Dart both in mint condition the show room had a 64 Mustang convertible at stupid money and a Buick two door similarly priced along with a couple of over priced high performance Japanese imports, the V6 twin turbo diesel C5 Citroen I went there to look at was out side immaculate in black very nice low kms but no hatch somewhere along the lines the turned them into a sedan, I’ll just keep my one I think, I did buy another Hillman but thats another story.
Conundrum: “Defending a car of this size is difficult. There is flatly no good reason to buy a car with such a disparity between exterior and interior room. The only excuse for a carmaker’s selling it must be that buyers want it, and that in an ostensibly free economy they have a right to buy what they want.”
Wikipedia: “Approximately 7,850,000 full-size Fords and Mercurys were sold from 1969-78. This makes it the second best selling Ford automobile platform after the Ford Model T.”
A high-school buddy occasionally would get his dad’s ’72 LTD and we’d go cruisin’.
It was a wallowing pig for sure. After about 3 years it added huge amounts of rust to it’s repertoire.
In the middle of it’s doors and quarter panels, no less.
I’ll also agree with the statement that the Flathead V-8 was one smooth and quiet engine.
For 10 years I owned a 1940 Ford. I bought it as a basket case from my best friend and neighbor Jim, in 1981. He was a great guy and like a father to me.
The flattie could be made to idle so slow you could as Jim would say “Count the fan blades as they went by”.
The handling wasn’t that bad, more body roll than you would like, but safe.
At a car show we were looking underneath a mid 60’s Corvette and he remarked loudly “Hey, these cars have traverse springs, just like an old Ford”. Dirty looks from the nearby Corvette owners were sent our way.
Of course the Corvettes had fully independent axles, but sometimes you can’t resist tweaking the faithful.
Jim, having owned and sold at least 3 Corvettes over the years, was just having some fun.
I remember reading that R&T article when it first came out… I feel old.
Tom McCahill did a similar exercise at Mechanix Illustrated with a 1946 Ford and Buick and compared it with their 1966 counterparts. https://www.flickr.com/photos/autohistorian/4316958932
R&T’s LTD had the same 400 V8 as the one I considered. They managed to hustle it from 0-60 in 11.8 seconds. That’s a good two and a half seconds more than what its 1967 predecessor with a 390 V8 did it in. A half second slower per year, on average. Not exactly progress.
Undoubtedly the 1972 400 couldn’t perform as well as the 1967 390 and it was a step back in performance. However, this isn’t exactly a fair comparison; there are some important changes that account for this difference. The 1967 390 in the linked test is a 390 4bbl engine with 10.5:1 compression. In comparison, the 1972 400 is a 2-bbl engine with 8.4:1 compression. These two factors alone make a massive difference in performance. Straight line performance may have been slower, however, the tail pipe emissions of the 1972 400 were considerably cleaner. So there was some progress.
I have quite a few road tests of fullsize Fords, both 390 and 400 powered. Here are a few more tests that more accurately compares the two engines on a more level playing field.
Car South Africa
1968 Ford LTD 390-2V, 270 hp (gross) , 9.5:1 compression, 2.75:1 gears
0-60: 10.9 seconds, ¼ mile 17.7 seconds @ n/a
Motor Trend
1970 Ford LTD, 390-2V, 265 hp (gross), 9.5:1 compression, 2.75 gears
0-60: 12.0 seconds, 1/4 mile 18.1s @ 77.2 mph
Motor Trend
1972 Ford LTD, 400-2V, 172 hp (net), 8.4:1 compression, 2.75 gears
0-60: 10.7 seconds, ¼ mile 17.9s @ 79 mph
Road Test
1973 Ford LTD, 400-2V, 171 hp (net), 8.4:1 compression, 2.75 gears
0-60 11.5 seconds, ¼ mile 17.5s @ 78 mph
FWIW, that 1972 Motor Trend test was a comparison between the LTD and a Chevrolet Caprice powered by a 400 sbc. The Ford outran the Chevy by about half a second to 60 and through the quarter mile. Regardless, no one bought these cars for their straight line performance. The abundance of smooth low end power made them more than adequate for the needs of their typical owners.
It’s also worth mentioning that while the Fords had overly soft suspensions and were poor handlers, it was not from a poor suspension design. It was due to the poor execution, in that excessive soft springs and weak shock absorbers were used. This produced a super soft smooth ride at the expense of handling. The police variants of these cars handled decently (for the times and class), but of course even if that suspension was offered in civilian models, I am sure there would have been few takers. The same basic front suspension dates back to 1965 and was used during this time on Ford NASCARs.
I agree on the suspension comments. My 77 Marquis is virtually identical to this 72 LTD, outside of cosmetic styling and a couple of inches in wheelbase.
The suspension is tuned for a soft absorbent ride that borders on miraculous. You can deflect the suspension with the pressure of one finger. When driving, you don’t feel any bumps at all. Smaller bumps simply disappear. Larger bumps are converted into a gentle boat-like motion, similar to a 18 ft powerboat on a gentle sea. The wheels may jump up and down like mad while the chassis stays quite level. In my opinion, this is an automotive super power, right up with any other spectacular automotive achievement, albeit one that’s not particularly welcome.
Of course all this soft isolation leads to handling that’s the opposite of what we might want or expect. A soft, light touch is required for the steering, with controlled, gentle motions as if you’re piloting a wheelbarrow full of water and you don’t want to spill anything.
Any sudden steering inputs results in unpleasant dips and sway, unrelated to the actual change in direction you might want the car to take. There’s so little feel of the road, the steering wheel feels like a remote control on a video game, an alarming sensation until you get used to it. .
The brakes on my Marquis are very good for the era. Surprisingly smooth and powerful they stop the car quickly and effortlessly. There’s excellent anti – dive geometry in the front end, with very little dip.
I am kind of an accidental expert on the Ford 400, as I was tasked by my buddy to build one for him. It is the same block as the Cleveland and is capable of making serious horsepower. I put a 434 TMeyer kit in it, as well as Australian heads and all the other go fast stuff. I went for torque and reliability over raw power and still got 320 hp at the rear wheels. I wanted to put a 460 long-block in it but he was adamant to have the 400 built up. The TMeyer kit is an absolute blast to drive, the low end is massive.
Now that said, this 320 hp Lincoln MkV is not any faster than my VW Golf.
I really like your tables comparing different iterations of engines. Most of the 1960’s cars, the vast majority, could not break 10 seconds 0-60. The 350 in my dad’s 1979 Impala did exactly the same.
The real malaise dogs were motors like the Chevrolet 267 and Ford 255. The were simply not enough power for full sized cars and no better the V-6 motors being offered at the time.
Are you sure the Chevy was a small block? Every 400″ B-Body 71-72 Chevy I saw was a rat. (Turbo-jet as opposed to Turbo-Fire)
It was a 400-2bbl engine, which was the Turbo-fire SBC variant. This was the standard engine for the Caprice and Kingswood wagon and the largest engine offered in California. The Big Blocks were not emission certified in California.
The article does not show a pic of the engine but the specs listed are those of the 400 SBC not the 402 BB. So unless MT messed up the specs, I am certain it’s a 400 SBC. Furthermore, a 400 Turbo-fire (402-4bbl) should have outrun a Ford 400-2V.
Never would have guessed that a 400 inch V8 would have a 4.00” bore and stroke… my calculator found on Google says 402.12 ci, I couldn’t imagine that it actually measures out that “square” both figuratively and literally…
Yeah it really is 4.0 x 4.0. Ford liked a 4″ bore. The FE 352, 351 W, C & M also have a 4.0″ bore but a 3.5″ stroke. The 302 also has a 4.0″ bore with a 3″ stroke.
Who knows why they decided to call it a 400 instead of a 402. For the original 351 the W it was supposedly called that so as not to confuse it with the FE 352, but then they go ahead and make a 3rd engine family C with that same 4.0 x 3.5 dimensions then mess with it to create the M.
The Ford 400 is really the motor that don’t get no respect. The one I hot rodded is strong like bull and reliable like fridge. Unlike the 460, it’s not heavy as tank.
The 400 in my ’73 Galaxie had an aftermarket cam in it, dual exhausts and an edelbrock performer with a 600cfm 4bbl. I experienced 11-12mpg in daily use and 16mpg at 60 on the highway (back in the 65 mph speed limit days) with the a/c running. I pulled a u-haul trailer with it at 90 mph down I-40 and it felt like it had more power left. The drivetrain was a rock while the rest of the car rusted down around it. Ford really needed to improve their rust resistance processes, because they weren’t working.
You like living on the edge there, Marc…. ;o)
Ford loved that 4″ bore, the 300 cubic inch inline Six had that and a 3.98″ stroke. I don’t know why they bothered with that .02 unless they didn’t want to have a 301 competing with the 302 V-8
Retro, yeah, I did. I figured the tires were good to 90 mph. After that, 65 seemed so slow.